ckmlb said:
Louie said:
cklmb: Would you go to a 45 year old lady and tell her she´s not a real reader because she reads shakespeare while you like to read Lord of the Rings?
Describing videogames as art is still far away. We are not nearly at a point where we can consider them art. Art means not visuals, art means opening peoples eyes. It means philosophy, (dis-)harmony and thoughts.
Ico might be a pretty game but it´s clearly no art. There are no really deepfull thoughts in it.
The problem we gamers have, is we often don´t even know what art is. We think if there is a game with pretty visuals it is art. That´s plainfull wrong. Art is more than just what you see, because what you see is not always what you get.
Listen: there is a game with awesome visuals and great gameplay, and you say this is a real game.
Then there is a game which helps to cure Alzheimer´s disease. There is this picture of a little boy nearly unable to move, but he is playing Wii Sports and he´s having fun.
And I ask you: Which is the real game?
Edit: Have to make a thread about this... videogames could be so much more than they currently are. And some of us want to stop it. And WE call the others conservative...
|
Have you played Ico? It's not for the pretty looks that I think it's art. Also: did I say Wii Sports is not a game? and what does it have to do with the little boy enjoying it or not. It's a matter of definitions. Anyway Nice debate and I'm off. Stop considering Brain Age art and stop telling me Nintendo is actually taking us closer to art in games. |
How about you stop telling me otherwise? Because the Playstation audience did a god awful job of supporting the games you apparently think are "art." There's no better evidence than that.
